A French physicist recounts the evidence affirming temperature changes are the cause of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the last 423,000 years of the ice-core record, thus invalidating the claims of more than a negligible role for CO2 in affecting climate changes.
In a new study, Dr. Pascal Richet re-emphasizes the “most fundamental tenet of science, the principle of non-contradiction” in reviewing the extensive ice-core evidence showing CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by as much as 7,000 years – the “opposite conclusion” of “a driving role [for] CO2 assigned by climate models”.
This fundamental failure of cause-effect experimental evidence “invalidates” claims CO2 is a key climate forcing agent.
Therefore, as Dr. Richet urges, “one should then reject the Arrhenian paradigm” because a “cardinal rule in science is to reject a hypothesis that clearly contradicts the experimental findings it is supposed to account for”.
The ice-core evidence showing “the fact that temperature decreases do not depend in any noticeable way on CO2 concentration in all [warming and cooling] cycles” consequently “shifts the burden of proof of any CO2 influence on temperature to the proponents” of the CO2-drives-climate paradigm.
“As simply based on fundamental logic and on the concept of cause and effect, an epistemological examination of the geochemical analysis performed on the Vostok ice cores invalidates the marked greenhouse effect on past climate usually assigned to CO2.”
“[T]he greenhouse effect of CO2 on…today’s climate remains to be documented,” and, for CH4, “a causal correlation is actually nonexistent”.
“[S]ignificant contributions of CO2 and CH4 to temperature changes at the Earth’s surface remain unsubstantiated by direct, independent evidence.”
“[C]urrent models suffer from the circular nature of the reasoning” even in their assumed feedback role for CO2, which is similar to reductio ad absurdum argumentation.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Re: Pascal Richet – Disputed Paper
Ice Ages demonstrate that CO2 is a poor feedback agent.
Dear Pascal,
Sorry to hear of problems with your paper. As mentioned previously, my recent paper on the modulation of ice ages likewise suggests that CO2 had little effect on ice age temperatures.
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper – the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
Pascal – all of the above points strongly suggest that you were correct. Ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. CO2 cannot explain the missing interglacials, nor the preference for NH insolation, nor the reverse CO2 feedback response, nor the strong interglacial warming – while dusty ice sheet albedo explains everything.
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
(This paper has had over 35,000 downloads.)
(Note we used EPICA ice core data, rather than Vostok, as it is more accurate.)
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
Freeman Dyson said as much years ago. Maybe, he was a great physicist after all.
What is the causation mechanism that takes 7,000 years for temperature to change atmospheric CO2?
Science has known for decades that HISTORICAL CO2 lagged behind temperature rises and then this, itself, creates a posive feedback in which the extra C02 boosts the warming futher.
The difference now is that man, himself, increased CO2 levels and this man-made boost is what is driving temperatures upward.
“Science has known for decades that HISTORICAL CO2 lagged behind temperature rises and then this, itself, creates a posive feedback in which the extra C02 boosts the warming futher.”
If this was true, the temperature would just keep going up. But it doesn’t. The temperature goes down again, thus proving that CO2 does not cause warming. Quod erat demonstrandum
There are multiple episodes of warming and cooling based on Milankovitch Cycles which take 10s of thousands of years to play out. The total solar energy gained or lost during a cycle is plus or minus 1 watt over every square meter of the earth. But that is enough, along with positive or negative feedbacks AND TIME, to make the earth a swamp or covered in glaciers.
There is very poor correlation between mankind’s emissions and temperature. One of the most compelling is that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. Another was the pause in warming between 2000-2014. The fact that the climate change activists acknowledged this can be seen by their 64 excuses for it happening. This was a period when mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions were very high.
Incorrect.
The 40% figure you mention only applies to the continental US – an area less than 2% of the globe.
Like everything else that shows anthropological caused global warming isn’t happening, the principle of non-contradiction will be ignored. The media will pretend it doesn’t exist and policy makers will never hear of it. This isn’t first time evidence showed that temperatures are controlling factor in carbon dioxide levels. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth showed that on the geological time scale temperature and CO2 levels were going up and down together. He wasn’t smart enough to know it but his data showed that the temperature was leading and therefore controlled the carbon dioxide concentration. I’m sure this has been pointed out since then, but the climate activists have a consistent pattern of ignoring anything that doesn’t support their point of view.
Another key point Richet makes is that high CO2 levels persist well after the interglacial events end, and temperature change clearly leads CO2 , which lags temperature decline by a very long time. Ot is overtlu obvious from the natural record that climate models have cause and effect reversed in observed fact ofthe changes in temperature and CO2, apart from the fact their pedictions are hundreds of percent wrong compared to what we actually observe now, because they attribute change to the lagging effect of CO2, so the predicted change does not really happen, because the attribution is simply wrong in fact.. But we must believe the models over reality? That is a cult.
By the way, if you click on Brian’s name it takes you here …
https://deconfused.com/
A very interesting treatise and well worth a read. Thank you Brian.
Would like to add this about Brian’s control theory of global warming fearology (that climate fears allow the conspirators to control the masses).
Brian’s control theory is supported by a significant literature on on what is called “ELITE CONSENSUS POLITICS”
For details please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/07/how-the-elite-subvert-democracy/